2-27-89 agendaEXTRA ITEM
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 54
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Resolution authorizing application and execution of Grant Project
Agreement to develop open space under the provisions of the State
Bonded Fund for Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield.
Background:
The City has been informed that $79,512.50 is available for
capital development in Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. To
qualify for those funds, a final application packet must be
completed and submitted to the state Department of Trade and
Economic Development by March 10, 1989. Improvements to be
completed with these grant funds include trail blacktopping, a
large group picnic shelter and portable hockey rink, and some
landscaping including grass, trees and shrubs.
The resolution authorizes submission of the final application by
the mayor and city manager. The format for the resolution is
dictated by the final application manual.
Recommended Motion:
• Approve the Resolution authorizing filing of application and
execution of grant project agreement to develop open space under
the provision of the state bonded fund at Veterans Memorial Park
of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. For the City to receive $79,512.50 for capital improvements
at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, the resolution must
be approved.
2. If the resolution is not approved, the City will not receive
the grant.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve the resolution and forfeit the grant.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The state has requested that the final application be submitted
to them by March 10, 1989. The resolution must be included in
that packet for the grant to be approved. To meet that deadline,
the Council must make a decision at the February 27 meeting.
lly submitted,.
Jam JS(JD. Prosser
Cit anaaer
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION
AND EXECUTION OF GRANT PROJECT AGREEMENT
TO DEVELOP OPEN SPACE
UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE STATE BONDED FUND
WHEREAS, the State Bonded Fund provides for the making of grants
to assist local governments in the acquisition and development of
outdoor recreation projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to develop certain land
known as Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, which land is to be
held and used for permanent open space; and
WHEREAS, in order for the proposed project to be eligible for
approval, there must be proof that it is part of a comprehensive
outdoor recreation plan and five-year action program (capital
improvement); and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the cost of developing said
interest shall be $300,000.00; and
WHEREAS, upon project approval, the City of Richfield must enter
into formal grant project agreements with the State for the
specific purpose of developing Veterans Memorial Park of
• Richfield,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD:
1. That an application be made to the State of Minnesota,
Department of Trade and Economic Development, Outdoor Recreation
Grants Section, for a grant from the Bonded Minnesota Laws 1987,
Chapter 400, Section 8, subdivision 2(a) for an amount presently
estimated at $79,512.50 and the applicant will pay the balance of
the cost from other funds available to it.
2. That the Mayor of the City Council and the City Manager are
directed to execute and file: a) such application and the 5-year
action program with the State of Minnesota, Department of Trade
and Economic Development, Outdoor Recreation Grants Section and
to provide additional information and furnish such documents as
may be required by said Department; and b) to act as the
authorized correspondents of the applicant.
3. That the proposed development is in accordance with plans for
the allocation of land for open space uses and that should said
grant be made, the applicant will develop and retain said land
for use(s) designated in said application and approved by the
Department of Trade and Economic Development.
4. That the United States of America and the State of Minnesota
be and they hereby are, assured of full compliance by the
applicant with the regulations of the Department of Interior,
effectuating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504; Age Discrimination Act
of 1975; and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity.
5. That the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development,
Outdoor Recreation Grants Section, to provide such grants as are
specified in numbered paragraph 1, above, for the years 1989-
1991.
6. That the Mayor of the City council and/or the City Manager
are authorized and directed to execute such agreement and any
supplemental agreements thereof.
Steven Quam, Mayor
Attest:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
• I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and
correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the
City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on
the 27 day of February, 1989, as shown by the minutes of said
meeting in my possession.
James D. Prosser, City Manager
/s
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 53
Agenda, February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
The Police Division would like to participate in the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety Grant Program to obtain more
Alcosensors (portable breath testers) for use in our D.W.I.
efforts.
E
Background:
The State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety has received
grants of money through section 402 of the Federal Highway and
Traffic Safety Act of 1966. This program funds purchase of
preliminary breath test instruments. These instruments are
loaned to local governmental units for the purpose of detecting
and identifying persons driving under the influence of alcohol.
These devices, known as Alco-sensors are screening instruments
designed to be used by patrol officers to establish probable
cause to arrest when it is believed someone is driving under the
influence of alcohol. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has
indicated the the City of Richfield can receive from one to five
of these Alco-sensors if we agree to participate in the grant
program.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution agreeing to have the State loan the City
breath testina units and furnish trainina for their use.
Basis of Recomendation:
In the past we have participated in this program and still have
some older breath testers that we received under the program.
The breath testers have become old and unreliable, to the point
that in the 1989 budget the Public Safety Department requested
purchase of two machines for our use. The participation in this
program may allow the Department to forego these purchases.
Alternative Recommendation:
We could decide not to participate in this program and purchase
the two Alco-sensors that were budgeted for 1989.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommend approval of resolution
to participate with the Minnesota
preliminary breath test program.
allowing the City of Richfield
Department of Public Safety
Respe fully submitted,
•
JDP:sae
Jam D. Prosser
Cit anager
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Meeting
February 27, 1989
At its February 27, 1989 regular Council Meeting, the Richfield
City Council hereby resolves that:
The City of Richfield and the State of Minnesota, Department of
Public Safety enter into an agreement for the purpose of
receiving from the State of Minnesota, Department of Public
Safety, preliminary breath test instruments on a loan basis for
use by law enforcement officers to assist in the detection of
motorists who may be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section
169.121, or local ordinances in conformity therewith.
• Further, the City Manager and Public Safety Director are hereby
authorized to execute such agreement.
Be it resolved this 27th day of February, Nineteen Hundred and
Eighty Nine.
Steven J. Quam,
Mayor
Attest:
Thomas Ferber
City Clerk
0
C:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 52
Agenda: February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Approval of resolution requesting Met Council to extend sunset
date for FAU Funding of the Penn Avenue/494 Improvement Project.
Background:
The design process for making improvements to the Penn/494
interchange including improvements extending to 76th Street has
been delayed due to the 1494/35W EIS. Specifically the length of
the new Penn Avenue bridge over 1494 is not known until the 1494
EIS is completed. This delay jeopardizes the FAU Funding for the
project. In order to preserve the FAU Funding, Hennepin County
is requesting Met Council to extend the sunset date. Hennepin
County wants Richfield's support in this request. The attached
resolution gives this support.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that council approve the attached resolution
. extending sunset date.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. FAU Funding is needed to make necessary improvements to the
bridge.
2. Met Council established a sunset date on the, FAU Funding
which does not allow time for 1494 EIS.
3. Richfield's support of Hennepin County's request for an
extension may help us get a favorable response.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Hennepin County staff plans to make the request in March so
action on the resolution is needed in February.
submitted,
0 JDP/eja
James D Prosser
City ager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MET COUNCIL TO EXTEND THE
SUNSET DATE FOR FAU FUNDING OF THE PENN AVENUE/I-494
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, CSAH 32 (Penn Avenue) from West 80th Street to West
75th Street in the Cities of Bloomington and Richfield (C.P.
8334, S.P. 27-632-15, M5206) is in need of reconstruction for'
capacity reasons, and
WHEREAS, This project will not be ready for bid letting
before the Metropolitan Council's sunset date of January 1, 1990
because the I-35W and I-494 Environmental Impact Statement
Studies will not be completed, and
WHEREAS, This project currently appears in the 1993 element
of the Count's 1989-1993 Capital Improvement Program,
NOWTHEREFORE, Be it resolved, by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
That the Metropolitan Council is hereby requested to extend the
sunset date of this project sufficiently to be compatible with
• the completion of the I-35W and I-494 Environmental Impact
Statement Studies and the County's 1989-1993 Capital Improvement
Program.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day
of February, 1989.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
??
•
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 51
February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of a proposed ordinance which
would restrict the issuance of permits in the Penn Avenue Sixty-
Sixth Street Planning Area.
Background:
On January 9, the City Council held a public hearing on the
proposed ordinance. It was decided to continue the hearing until
February 27, 1989. In the interim, the HRA was asked to hold a
forum to permit people to express their views on the proposed
ordinance. The HRA set February 21, 1989 as the forum date. On
February 9, a letter was mailed to 1050 persons with an interest
in property within 350 feet of the PASSS Study Area. The letter
invited people to both the HRA forum and City Council hearing on
February 27. (Letter copy attached).
Approximately ten people attended the HRA forum, four spoke. No
one objected to the ordinance. One person expressed concern for
the speed of traffic on Penn Avenue and the lack of crosswalks.
Two people expressed concern for what would happen to their home.
These people were told that traffic analysis and identification
of redevelopment sites was several months away yet. One person
wondered why the boundary of the study area didn't extend further
south along Penn Avenue. It was explained that the existing uses
and market potential were strong influences which restrict the
location of the boundary.
The HRA requested staff to report the above comments to the City
Council.
Additional response has come from two areas. The PASSS Advisory
Committee discussed the interim ordinance again at their February
meeting. No strong feelings were expressed either for or against
the proposal. They decided not to take a position: Finally, a
letter was received from a woman who resides in an apartment in
the 6500 Oliver Avenue block. She expressed concern that the
area would be changed and become more urban. However, she also
pointed up a need for improvements to buildings and sidewalks.
Additional information is contained in the attachments. Included
is the January 9, 1989 City Council letter, the proposed
ordinance (the ordinance would be effective until approximately
mid-December, 1989), and the HRA resolution in support of the
interim ordinance.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the ordinance following the public hearing.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City has deliberately embarked upon a program to
improve and enhance the commercial areas of our community.
2. The HRA has recently funded a
the formulation of a comprehe:
be used as a guide for future
3. A comprehensive approach will
maximize the potential of the
City.
1 •
on December 5, 1988. The resolution urges the Council to
adopt the proposed legislation.
6. The PASSS Advisory Committee met on February 7, 1989. The
concept of restricting the issuance of permits during the
planning framework study was discussed. The committee
decided to take no action.
study which provides for
asive planning framework to
development decisions.
provide an opportunity to
area for the future of the
4. Continued piecemeal development activity in the area
will frustrate the implementation of a comprehensive
plan and exacerbate existing problems.
5. The HRA adopted the attached resolution at their meeting
7. The Planning Commission discussed the ordinance at their
meeting on December 13, 1988 and raised no objections.
8. Notice of the February 27, 1989 public hearing appeared in
the Sun-Current on February 15, 1989.
9. Letters explaining the proposed ordinance and announcing
the hearing were mailed February 9, 1989, to people with
an interest in property in the PASSS Study Area as
well as those with an interest in property for 350
feet from the study area boundary.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Pursue the ordinance but on a different time schedule.
2. Not support the proposed ordinance.
Decision/Decision Mode:
Property owners and tenants are making decisions regularly on
their property. To protect the planning process, the resolution
and ordinance should be pursued now to minimize additional
problems.
Respqqtsfully submitted,
0 JDP:sae
JamP)b?D. Prosser
Cit anaaer
City of Richfield •6700 Portland Avenue - Minnesota 55423
• City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Ouam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
February 9, 1989
Dear Property Owner or Tenant:
Regarding: The PASSS Interim Ordinance
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Public Meeting:.. February 21, 1989, 7:00 P.M. Richfield City
Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
City Council
Public Hearing: February 27, 1989, 7:00 P.M. Richfield City
Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
You are invited to the above meeting and subsequent public
hearing. In late December, 1988, you received a similar letter
of invitation to a City Council hearing in early January. The
purpose of the hearing was to consider the proposed interim
ordinance. At that public hearing, the City Council requested
the HRA to hold a public meeting to provide an opportunity for
people to express their thoughts about the proposed ordinance.
The Council also decided to continue the hearing until February
27th, 1989.
The interim ordinance is being proposed because the city has
recently begun a planning study for the area within the boundary
depicted on the enclosed map. If you have an interest in
property within the area or close to it, you have probably
already received mailings about the study. It is known as the
Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area or PASSS,.
The purpose of the study is to form a comprehensive planning
framework. The framework is a statement to be used by the city,
property owners, tenants and developers to guide future
development decisions as property in the area is upgraded. Such
a plan would help assure the long term health of the area. The
planning guide should be completed during 1989.
The benefits of a comprehensive planning guide may be threatened
by piecemeal development activities. You may have noticed
several properties in the area are now vacant and for sale.
Other properties may experience similar changes. If
redevelopment were to occur before a new plan is in place, it may
only add to the problems in the area rather than helping to solve
them.
• The proposed interim ordinance is written to minimize the amount
of piecemeal development which takes place during the planning
Telephone 869-7521 (612)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
?k
study period. This restriction is in the best long-term interest
• of Richfield. However, while attempting to minimize piecemeal
development, it is also important that owners and tenants be able
to undertake routine maintenance on their property. The
ordinance would permit such maintenance activities. It would be
in effect for a period of approximately 9 months or until about
mid-December, 1989. (On December 12th, 1988, the City Council
adopted a resolution which prohibits the issuance of new permits
other than for those in process or the operation of on-going
businesses. The resolution would remain in effect until an
ordinance becomes effective or the resolution is rescinded).
Restricting the issuance of permits for a period of time has been
used by the city in other commercial areas in the past. It has
been an effective tool in prohibiting piecemeal development
during a planning period while at the same time permitting
+property owners and tenants to maintain their property.
If you have questions regarding this matter and would like to ask
them now rather than at the hearing, please call Byron Wallace,
Bruce Palmborg or myself, Elizabeth Morrison at City Hall between
8:00 AM and 4:30 PM Monday through Friday.
Thank you for your interest in the future of Richfield.
Sincerely yours, _
Elizabeth Morrison
City Planner
0
•
•
r
PENN AVENUE SIXTY•SIXTH STREET
STUDY
(PASSS) AREA
?.L
CD wn. 0. 61
Hitt
pop
I .
T 117
1
V • ? ? t ? 1f ?
1
1
t? •
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter Number 8
January 9, 1989 Agenda
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance which would
restrict the issuance of permits in the Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth
Street Planning Area (PASSS). The ordinance is attached.
Background:
An interim development resolution was passed on December 12
restricting the issuance of all permits or other approvals in the
PASSS area pending final consideration of the attached interim
ordinance.
The interim, or moratoriums ordinance is designed to restrict
development or.redevelopment in the PASSS area which would
negatively impact the planning process. The City Council and HRA
have directed staff to conduct a PASSS area study, several
,meetings have been held with an Advisory Committee and
preliminary research accomplished. Random development or
redevelopment of underutilized properties during the planning
process may well intensify problems such as parking and traffic
or result in development which is inconsistent with the final
proposed plan.
The interim ordinance in restricting permits recognizes the need
of businesses and property owners to conduct business and
maintain their property. Section 3, subdivision 1, on page 4
sets forth the exceptions to the regulations permitting normal
f? maintenance and limited additions or new construction of $25,000
or increase of ten percent of fair market value.
It should be noted that projects in process are not precluded by
this moratorium. The conditional use permit already granted for
a restaurant on the old Arby's site would allow construction as
approved. Similarly, the boundary of the district has been
adjusted to permit the construction of a dry cleaning business at
6613 Penn Avenue. this has been under review and 'revision as
requested by staff since its proposal late last spring.
The interim ordinance would be effective for ten months from the
date of publication. This will allow sufficient time subsequent
to the plan completion this summer to modify any ordinances
necessary to properly regulate the area consistent with the
plan.An interim ordinance strategy has been utilized for other
redevelopment areas in the city. Within the LHN, restrictions
were placed on the block now occupied by Woodlake Point and
Market Plaza prior to redevelopment. More recently, restrictions
placed on the ILN expired in September, 1987. In,both instances,
the objective was to permit time to formulate a comprehensive
planning frame work for the area so that development could be
pursued systematically.
Recommended Motion:
IS Adopt the ordinance following the public hearing.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City has deliberately embarked upon a program to
improve and enhance the commercial areas of our community.
2. The HRA has recently funded a
the formulation of a comprehe
be used as a guide for future
3. A comprehensive approach will
maximize the potential of the
city.
study which provides for
nsive planning frame work to
development decisions.
provide an opportunity to
area for the future of the
4. Continued piecemeal development activity in the area
will frustrate the implementation of a comprehensive
plan and exacerbate existing problems.
5. The HRA adopted the attached resolution at their meeting
on December 5, 1988. The resolution urges the Council to
adopt the proposed legislation.
6. The PASSS Advisory Committee met on December 6, 1988. The
concept of restricting the issuance of permits during the
planning framework study was noted.
7. The Planning Commission discussed the ordinance at their
meeting on December 13, 1988 and raised no objections.
8. Notice of the public hearing appeared in the Sun-Current
on December 28, 1988.
9. Letters explaining the proposed ordinance and announcing
the hearing were mailed December 27, 1988, to people with
an interest in property in the PASSS Study Area as
well as those with an interest in property for 350
feet from the study area boundary.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Pursue the ordinance but on a different time schedule.
2. Not support the proposed ordinance.
Decision/Decision Mode:
Property owners and tenants are making decisions regularly on
their property. To protect the planning process, the resolution
and ordinance should be pursued now to minimize additional
problems.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
-#//-6
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 1989_1
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING
PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY,
REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING
CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND
SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
~Section 1.
A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic use, devel-
opment and possible redevelopment of that area of the City generally referred
to as "Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area" hereinafter referred to as
the "Area," the boundaries of which Area are more specifically described as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly right-of-way line
of Co. Hwy, No. 62 and the Easterly property line of Lot 3, Block
1, Leslie Terrace Addition, thence in a line along said Southerly
right-of-way line to its intersection with the Westerly right-
of-way line of Oliver Avenue South. Thence, Southerly along said
Westerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Southerly
right-of-way line of West 66th Street. Thence, Westerly along
said Southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the
Easterly property line of Lot 10, Block 6, Fairwood' Park Addi-
tion. Thence, Southerly along said Easterly property line, as
extended, more or less, to its intersection with the Southerly
right-of-way line of West 68th Street. Thence, Westerly along
said Southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the
Easterly right-of-way line of Penn Avenue South. Thence, South-
erly along said Easterly right-of-way line to its intersection
with the Southerly property line of Lot 15, Block 9, Tingdale
Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition. Thence, Westerly along
said Southerly property line, as extended, to its intersection
with the Easterly property line of Lot 16, Block 1, Tingdale
Brothers Lincoln Hills Third Addition. Thence, Northerly along
said Easterly property line, as extended, to its intersection
with the Northerly right-of-way line of West 67th Street. Thence
Westerly along said Northerly of right-of-way line to its inter-
section with the Easterly right-of-way line of Queen Avenue
South. Thence, Northerly along said Easterly right-of-way line
to its intersection with the Southerly property line of the
vacated alley (12-17-67 filed) abutting the Northerly property
line of Lot 21, Block 1, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addi-
tion. Thence, Westerly along said vacated alley property line,
as extended, to its intersection with the Easterly right-of-way
All- 7
• line of Russell Avenue South. Thence, Northerly along said
Easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Northerly
right-of-way line of West 66th Street. Thence, Easterly along
said Northerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the
Westerly right-of-way line of Queen Avenue South. Thence,
Northerly more or less, along said Westerly right-of-way line to
its intersection with the Southerly right-of-way line of West
65th Street. Thence, Westerly along said Southerly right-of-way
line to its intersection with the Westerly property line of Lot
2, Block 1, Harry Tickner's Subdivision. Thence, Northerly along
said Westerly property line, as extended, to the point of
beginning. Except the North 40 feet of Lot 8 and the South 110
feet of Lot 9 Fairwood Park Addition.
B. There are a number of planning and land use issues arising in the
Area-which require comprehensive planning and the consideration of official
controls as defined in. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subdivision 15,
among which are the following:
1. The City is deficient in commercial and industrial tax base. Very
little undeveloped land remains within the City. The location of
the Area is such that with proper planning it has the potential to
provide a location for valuable and desirable commercial and/or
industrial development within the City. Absent such planning, the
is opportunity for such development may be lost.
2. The Area presently contains tracts of underdeveloped land which may
not be developed to the optimum without improving access and im-
proving traffic patterns.
3. The Area may best be developed pursuant to a unified plan and/or in
large segments rather than on a piecemeal basis.
4. The Area contains a number of buildings which are aging and appear
to be in a deteriorating condition. Some parts of the Area present
a poor visual appearance because of such factors as lack of uniform
setbacks, unrelated facades, inadequate or inappropriate loading and
unloading areas, insufficient parking, excessive land coverage,
conflicting traffic movements and other functional inadequacies.
5. The Area is bounded by single-family residence districts which are
jeopardized or adversely affected by non-residential traffic. There
appears to be a need to relocate and redesign streets and other
traffic control facilities in and around the Area so as to safeguard
such residential areas and so as to minimize land use conflicts. It
appears necessary and desirable to formulate a long-range master
plan for control and movement of traffic within and around the Area.
6. It appears necessary and desirable to avoid further piecemeal
development and redevelopment of the Area so as to reverse the
• undesirable development patterns which have existed and which now
exist within the Area including fragmented land ownership and
under-utilization of the land.
2
-Ir-1
0 7. It appears that there are or may be substandard building conditions
and structures within the Area.
8. It appears that by reason of sociological and technological changes,
as well as by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence and the faulty
arrangement or design of buildings and improvements in the Area,
there is a need for comprehensive planning and development of the
Area.
9. It appears that there is or may be excessive land coverage in some
parts of the Area, deleterious land use, and obsolete layout of land
tracts and developments, requiring planning and redevelopment.
10. The foregoing factors and other factors are found to be injurious to
the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens and property
owners of the City* and persons occupying property or working and
being in and around the Area.
11. The presence of such conditions has caused an impairment of the
value of private investments, has threatened sources of public
revenues, has deprived the community and its residents of better
facilities and job opportunities, and has otherwise adversely
affected the public welfare.
• C. There is a need to consider the formulation of a new comprehensive
plan and program, together with official controls for the development and/or
redevelopment of the Area. Such plan and program and controls will require
intensive study over a number of months. There is a need for an interim
ordinance applicable to the Area for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and to
insure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the new compre-
hensive plan and development-redevelopment program and new official controls
for the Area. There is a further need to regulate, restrict or prohibit
uses, developments or subdivisions of land within the Area during
the planning process, so as to avoid the occurrence of events
which will be inimical to the orderly development and
redevelopment of the Area in future years.
Section 2. During the period that this interim ordinance is in effect,
no privately owned property within the area shall be developed or redeveloped
nor shall any licenses or permits, rezonings, plattings or land divisions
pursuant to Richfield City Code be issued by the City for any such development
or redevelopment except as provided in Section 3 hereof.
Section 3. Subdivision 1. Notwithstanding the limitations, restric-
tions, and prohibitions contained in the foregoing Section 2, the City may
grant license renewals for licenses previously issued for activities within
the Area; and may grant permits for development or redevelopment within the
Area if it finds that the development or redevelopment involved will comply
with the following criteria:
3
/v9
A. The permit will not involve the construction of a new building or
the enlargement of an existing building at a cost of more than
$25,000.
B. The construction will not materially change the future use, devel-
opment or redevelopment of the property involved or any adjacent
properties.
C. The construction will not increase the fair market value of the
property involved by more than ten percent.
D. The construction of the improvement will not intensify traffic or
parking problems on the subject property, adjacent properties, or
adjacent highways and streets.
• -E. The proposed project will not exacerbate or intensify conflicts
between residential and non-residential traffic within the Area.
F. Granting of the permit will not make a material difference in or
create a serious impediment to the development or redevelopment of
the property involved upon completion of the planning process.
G. Subject to the limitation contained in Section 3, Subdivision 1,
paragraph A, the construction will permit (a) the better utilization
of an existing structure on the same property, or (b) the repair,
maintenance or safeguarding of existing structures, or (c) the
completion of building interior improvements which are necessary to
the property continued utilization of the property pending the
planning process.
Subd. 2. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent the City
from processing licenses, permits, rezonings, plattings or land divisions up
to the point of, but not including, their actual issuance if the project or
projects involved will comply with the following criteria:
A. The project will be on a single tract of land within
the Area having an area of at least 80,000 square feet
and will involve development or redevelopment which
will have an estimated market value in excess of
$2,000,000 per acre.
B. The project involved is consistent with and complementary to the
development or redevelopment of other adjacent properties within the
Area.
C. The proposed project will, in the opinion of the council, contribute
to and accelerate the development or redevelopment of the balance of
the Area.
Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing Subdivision 2,
no license, permit, rezoning, platting or land division shall be issued for
• any project described in that subdivision unlessi the site for the project is
removed from the provisions of this ordinance by an amendment to Section 1-A
hereof.
4
Subd. 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent the final
approval of any subdivision which was given preliminary approval prior to the
effective date.
Subd. 5. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent rezoning to
any of the districts specified in Section 530 of the City Code or the issuance
of any licenses, permits, plattings or land divisions in connection with any
Planned Unit Development.
Section 4. This ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of eight
months from its effective date, provided that in the event the planning
process has not been completed within the eight-month period, its effective-
ness may be extended for such additional periods as the City Council may by
resolution determine to be appropriate, not exceeding a total additional
period of eighteen (18) months.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1989.
Steven Quam, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
RfldOrdl:0055OD15.E14
5
104
HRA RESOLUTION NO. 342
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS AND OTHER APPROVALS IN THE
PENN AVENUE SIXTY-SIXTH STREET STUDY AREA
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) of
the City of Richfield finds that the formation of a new land use
plan and program including consideration of the adoption of
official controls as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.352, Subdivision 15, for development and redevelopment of
that area of the City generally referred to as the "Penn Avenue
Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area," hereinafter referred to as the
"Area," the boundaries of which Area are more specifically
described on the attached map, as a means of guiding future
development of land in the Area is necessary to insure a safer,
.more pleasant, more economically viable environment for
residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, and to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of
Richfield's citizens; and
WHEREAS, the HRA also finds that the formation of a land use
plan and development-redevelopment program for the Area could
bring about significant savings in both private and public
expenditures, enable public and private agencies to plan their
activities in harmony with the land use plan and development-
redevelopment program to be formulated, assist in.developing
lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, make the
provision of public services less costly, and achieve a more
secure tax base; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City
has heretofore determined the need for such a study and the
creation of a program within the Area, and has authorized the
expenditure of Authority funds to assist the City in such an
undertaking; and
WHEREAS, the HRA in order to further promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Richfield
has concluded that the adoption of an interim zoning ordinance,
for the purpose of protecting the planning process in the Area,
regulating, restricting and prohibiting certain uses,
developments and subdivisions within the Area, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, Subdivision 4, is desirable;
and,
WHEREAS, immediate action is needed to effectively protect
the planning process and to insure that the benefits of municipal
planning for the Area are secure by the City of Richfield and its
citizens.
NOW9 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the HRA that the HRA
• recommends to the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the
City Manager and City staff receive authorization and direction
to:
Take immediate action to pursue to conclusion with the
cooperation and assistance of the Richfield HRA, the
planning process already commenced for the land use and long
term development-redevelopment of the Area;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the HRA recommends to the City
Council that City staff be authorized and directed to halt the
processing of all requests or applications for any variances,
permits, licenses, except for the annual renewal of previously
granted licenses such as restaurant, liquor and vending machine
licenses, rezonings, and land divisions made pursuant to
Richfield City Code, and to stop accepting any additional
applications for platting made pursuant to Richfield City Code,
for property located within the Area. The prohibition against
,.the processing of the requests and applications contained in this
resolution shall not include any applications or requests which
have been given final approval prior to December 12, 1988, or
subdivisions which have been given preliminary approval prior to
that date. The restrictions within this proposed ordinance
should include such time and dollar limitations, variance
provisions, and procedures for implementation as are consistent
with the spirit of this proposal, State law and the best
interests of the City of Richfield.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 5-th day of Dec.ember-, 1988.
<-
Thomas E. Harms Chairman
ATTE
Steven L. Dev ch
Acting City Clerk
0
R
. CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS AND OTHER APPROVALS IN THE
PENN AVENUE SIXTY-SIXTH STREET STUDY AREA
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Richfield finds that the forma-
tion of a new land use plan and program including consideration of the adop-
tion of official controls as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352,
Subdivision 15, for development and redevelopment of that area of the City
generally referred to as the "Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area,"
hereinafter referred to as the "Area," the boundaries of which Area are more
specifically described in section one of the interim zoning ordinance, Tran-
sitory Ordinance Number as a means of guiding future development
. of land in the Area is necessary to insure a safer, more pleasant, more
economic environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public
activities, and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of
Richfield's citizens; and
WHEREAS, the city council also finds that the formation of a land use
plan and development-redevelopment program for the Area could bring about
significant savings in both private and public expenditures, enable public and
private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the land use plan
and development-redevelopment program to be formulated, assist in developing
lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, make the provision of
public services less costly, and achieve a more secure tax base; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City has hereto-
fore determined the need for such a study and the creation of a program within
the Area, and has authorized the expenditure of Authority funds to assist the
City in such an undertaking; and
r
C
WHEREAS, the city council in order to further promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Richfield has adopted Transi-
tory Ordinance Number , for the purpose of protecting the planning
process in the Area, regulating, restricting and prohibiting certain uses,
developments and subdivisions within the Area, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.356, Subdivision 4, and has made findings in Section 1 of such
Transitory Ordinance which findings are included and adopted by reference as a
part of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter mandates that the interim ordinance not take
effect until after 30 days from the date of publication of.the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, appropriate action is needed to effectively protect the planning
process and to insure that the benefits of municipal planning for the Area are
secure by the City of Richfield and its citizens pending the effective date of
0 such Transitory Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Rich-
field, that the city manager and city staff are authorized and directed to
take immediate action to pursue to conclusion the planning process already
commenced for the land use and long term development-redevelopment of the Area
and to seek the cooperation and assistance and input on the Richfield Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in connection with such planning process.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provisions of Section 1 through Section 3
of Transitory Ordinance No. are incorporated into and made a part of this
resolution and all references contained therein to "this ordinance" and "this
interim ordinance" shall, for the purposes of this resolution be deemed to
mean "this resolution"; provided, however, that nothing in this resolution
shall be construed to preclude the processing of applications or requests
0 which have been given final approval prior to December 12, 1988.
2
r
S
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. adopted December 12,
1988, is hereby rescinded and superseded by this resolution.
This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption and shall remain in
effect until Transitory Ordinance No. becomes effective, or until this
Resolution is rescinded or modified, whichever occurs first.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of
1989.
Steven Quam, Mayor
0
•
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
RfldRes2:0055RE16.E14
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 50
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Request to continue the public hearing on an amendment to the
Planned Unit Development plan and a conditional use permit for
restaurant use with drive-up windows at the Hub Shopping Center -
66th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
Background:
Bradley Real Estate Trust, owner of the Hub Shopping Center, has
requested an amendment to the PUD plan and approval of the
conditional use permit for two restaurants with drive-up windows
at the existing First Minnesota Bank Building, 66th and Nicollet
Avenue at the Hub Shopping center. The applicant is proposing to
renovate the existing out building structure to include two sit-
down fast food restaurants, Hardees and TCBY, each with a
separate drive-up window. The restaurants would occupy
approximately 4,911 square feet of space on the ground floor.
The second floor would continue as 5,320 square feet of office
use. The renovation would include a 569 square foot solarium
extension to the existing building.
• The property is within the LHN Redevelopment Area and is zoned
PC-2, Planned General Commercial.
On January 24, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the
amendment to the Planned Unit Development and the conditional use
permit for restaurant use with drive-up windows (TCBY and
Hardees) at the Hub Shopping Center. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the amendment based on findings that the
traffic pattern may present a hazard to pedestrian traffic and
adversely affect the traffic circulation in the center and that
no satisfactory plan for trash disposal was presented.
Subsequently, the applicant has been working to revise the
proposed plan regarding traffic circulation and the location of
the trash bins, to comply with Planning Commission requests. The
applicant has requested that the public hearing be continued in
order to allow further efforts to be made on the plan revisions.
Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 545.09, outlines the conditions governing the
conditional use permit.
2. Section 530, outlines the requirements for Planned Unit
Development plan approval and amendment.
0 Recommended Motion:
,7j? -/
. Continue the public hearing on the amendment to
Development plan and the conditional use permits
food restaurants each with a drive-up window at
Nicollet Avenue at the Hub Shopping Center.
Basis of Recommendation:
n
U
the Planned Unit
for two fast
66th Street and
1. Sufficient data has not yet been submitted providing evidence
that the proposed use would not have adverse impact on the
circulation and safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at
the Hub Shopping Center. Additional suggestions and
alternatives have been proposed but staff and the City's
traffic engineering consultant have not had adequate
opportunity to respond.
Alternative Recommendation:
To deny the amendment to the PUD plan on the basis that the
proposed use would have an adverse impact on the circulation and
safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the Hub Shopping
Center.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on February 27, 1989.
The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of
Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Notice of hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet
of the property and legal notice was published in the Sun Current
Newspaper.
Respe tfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
0
s?i°=z
Telecopier
(612) 347-9389
Writer's Direct Dial Number
February 22, 1989
Mr. James Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6900 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Hub Shopping Center
* off-Street Parking Agreements
* Hardees Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Prosser:
Due to the change
Bank Building, we
Council meeting.
Center off-street
a Hardees restaur,
in design regarding the former First Minnesota
request an extension to the March 13, 1989,
This request would be for both the Hub Shopping
parking agreement and the approval request for
ant.
Should there be any questions call at your convenience.
Respectfully Yours,
1
Idic and L. Heuer
Sr. Leasing Manager
RLH/b
cc: E. ,,Lawrence Miller, Bradley Real Estate Trust
ron Wallace, City of Richfield
David Shea, Shea Architects
Gerry Domino, Construction, Inc.
FEB 23 198.9
TOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY 330 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-4444
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 49
Agenda February 13, 1989
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1989 New and Used Motor Vehicle Dealer Licenses for
Walser Buick, located at.2100 West 78th Street.
Background:
On January •6, 1989, the city received the renewal applications
for the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for 1989 from
Walser Buick. The required license fees have been paid.
These renewal applications have been reviewed by both the Public
Safety Department Inspections Division and Community Development
Planning Division. Both Public Safety and Community Development
staff in reviewing the previous year have indicated that they
have no areas of concern regarding Walser Buick's operation
including property maintenance and planning/zoning issues.
Staff has previously invited all car dealers to meet with city
staff to discuss a number of regulations and ordinances that
pertain to car dealerships. This meeting was attended by only
one car dealer.
The applicant has obtained his State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle
• Dealer's License for 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Aprove the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for Walser
Buick for 1989 with the following stipulations:
- There may not be any parking of inventory cars on any
roadway or street.
- The licensee will comply with all other ordinances and
statutes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both
city codes and state statutes pertaining to motor vehicle
dealer's licensure.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business.is an asset
to the community.
Alternatives:
1. The council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if
the hearing is continued beyond February 27, 1989, the council
must consider the granting of a license extension to allow the
applicant to continue to operate until the rescheduled hearing
can be conducted.
. 2. The council could decide not to grant the license renewals.
This would result in the applicant not being able to operate
a motor vehicle dealership in Richfield.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of
all motor vehicle dealer licenses has been scheduled for February
27, 1989 and are presented at'this time for council
consideration.
Respectfu ly'submitted,
James . Prosser
City M Yager
JDP/ej a
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 48
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1989 New and Used Motor Vehicle Dealer Licenses for
Walser Imports, located at 2000 West 78th Street.
Background:
On December 9, 1988, the City received the renewal applications
for the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for 1989 from
Walser Imports. The required license fee has been paid.
Staff previously invited all car dealers to meet with city staff
to discuss a number of regulations and ordinances that pertain to
car dealerships. This meeting was attended by only one car
dealer.
The renewal applications have been reviewed by both the Public
Safety Department Inspections Division and Community Development
Planning Division. A review of the operations for the previouss
year by the Public Safety and Community Development staff has
indicated the following areas of concern:
1. Walser's usage of their customer and employee parking
areas. Walser has consistently used their employee and
• customer parking areas for inventory parking. This is a
violation of their special use permit.
2. Walser has not removed the light bases that they
illegally installed.
The applicant has obtained his State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle
Dealer's License for 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for Walser
Imports for 1989 with the following stipulations:
- There may not be any parking of inventory cars on any
roadway or street.
- The customer and employee parking areas cannot be used for
inventory parking at any time. This could be accomplished
by rearranging their parking lot so that it is in
conformance with the special use permit. This must be
completed within thirty days of this hearing.
- Remove the illegally installed light bases within
ninety (90) days of this hearing, or obtain council
approval for an amended off-street parking permit.
- Licensee will comply with all other ordinances and
statutes.
;4V-1
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has not complied with all of the provisions of
the City codes and the special use permit pertaining to
motor vehicle dealer's licensure.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset
to the community.
Alternatives:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however,
if the hearing is continued beyond February 27, 1989, the
council must consider the granting of a license extension to
allow the applicant to continue to operate until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The council could decide not to grant the license renewals.
This would result in the applicant not being able to operate
a motor vehicle dealership in Richfield.
3. The council could decide to grant the license renewals without
the recommended stipulations. This would result in the
applicant not being in compliance with the city code and their
special use permit.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
• The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of
all motor vehicle dealer licenses has been scheduled for February
27, 1989 and are presented at this time for council
consideration.
Respe ully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 47
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1989 New and Used Motor Vehicle Dealer Licenses for
Richfield-Bloomington Honda, located at 400 West 78th Street.
Background:
On December 23, 1988, the City received the renewal applications
for the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for 1989 from
Richfield-Bloomington Honda. The required license fee has been
paid.
These renewal applications have been reviewed by both the Public
Safety Department Inspections Division and Community Development
Planning Division. Both Public Safety and Community Development
staff in reviewing the previous year have indicated that they
have,no areas of concern regarding Richfield-Bloomington Honda's
operation including property maintenance and planning/zoning
issues.
Staff has previously invited all car dealers to meet with city
staff to discuss a number of regulations and ordinances that
pertain to car dealerships. This meeting was attended by only
one car dealer.
• The applicant has obtained his State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle
Dealer's License for 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for
Richfield-Bloomington Honda for 1989 with the following
stipulations:
- There may not be any parking of inventory cars on any
roadway or street.
- Licensee will comply with all other ordinances and
statutes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both
City codes and State statutes pertaining to motor vehicle
dealer's licensure.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset
to the community.
Alternatives:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however,
if the hearing is continued beyond February 27, 1989, the
Council must consider the granting of a license extension to
• allow the applicant to continue to operate until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
•
2. The Council could decide not to grant the license renewals.
This would result in the applicant not being able to operate
a motor vehicle dealership in Richfield.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of
all motor vehicle dealer licenses has been scheduled for February
27, 1989 and are presented at this time for council
consideration.
JDP:sae
Respectfully submitted,
Jam M. Prosser
Cit nager
0
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 46
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1989 Used Motor Vehicle Dealer License for Morrow Auto
Body Specialty Inc., located at 6445 Cedar Avenue South.
Background :
On December 22, 1988, the City received the renewal application
for the used motor vehicle dealer license for 1989 from Morrow
Auto Body Specialty Inc. The required license fee has been paid.
This renewal application has been reviewed by both the Public
Safety Department Inspections Division and Community Development
Planning Division. Both Public Safety and Community Development
staff in reviewing the previous year have indicated that they
have no areas of concern regarding Morrow Auto Body's operation
including property maintenance and planning/zoning issues.
The applicant has obtained his State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle
Dealer's License for 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the used motor vehicle dealer license for Morrow Auto
Body for 1989 with the following stipulation:
- There may not be any parking
any roadway or street.
- The licensee will comply with
statutes.
of inventory cars on
all other ordinances and
Recommended motion:
1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both
City codes and State Statutes pertaining to motor vehicle
dealer's licensure.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an
asset to the community.
Alternatives:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however,
if the hearing is continued beyond February 27, 1989, the
Council must consider the granting of a license extension
to allow the applicant to continue to operate until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide not to grant the license renewals.
This would result in the applicant not being able to
operate a motor vehicle dealership in Richfield.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of
all motor vehicle dealer licenses has been scheduled for February
27, 1989 and are presented at this time for council
consideration.
Respect lly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:Sae
u
0
0
71
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 45
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1989 New and Used Motor Vehicle Dealer Licenses for
Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile, located at 1900 West 78th Street.
Background:
On December 14, 1988, the city received the renewal applications
for the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for 1989 from
Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile. The required license fees have been
paid.
These renewal applications have been reviewed by both the Public
Safety Department Inspections Division and Community Development
Planning Division. Both Public Safety and Community Development
staff in reviewing the previous year have indicated that they
have no areas of concern regarding Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile's
operation including property maintenance and planning/zoning
issues.
City staff previously invited all car dealers to meet with city
staff to discuss a number of regulations and ordinances that
pertained to car dealers. Only representatives from the Wally
McCarthy Oldsmobile dealership attended this meeting.
• The applicant has obtained his State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle
Dealer's License for 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends approval of the new and used motor vehicle
dealer licenses for Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile for 1989 with the
following stipulation:
- There may not be any parking of inventory cars on
any roadway or street.
- The licensee will comply with all other ordinances
and statutes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both
city codes and state statutes pertaining to motor vehicle
dealer's licensure.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset
to the community.
Alternatives:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if
the hearing is continued beyond February 27, 1989, the council
must consider the granting of a license extension to allow the
• applicant to continue to operate until the rescheduled hearing
can be conducted.
0 2. The Council could decide not to grant the license renewals.
This would result in the applicant not being able to operate
a motor vehicle dealership in Richfield.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of
all motor vehicle dealer licenses has been scheduled for February
27, 1989 and are presented at this time for council
consideration.
Respe t lly submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
JDP/eja
•
41
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 44
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1989 New and Used Motor Vehicle Dealer Licenses for
Terry Feldmanns Imports, located at 920 West 78th Street.
Background:
On December 20, 1988, the City received the renewal applications
for the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for 1989 from
Terry Feldmanns Imports. The required license fee has been paid.
The renewal applications have been reviewed by both the Public
Safety Department Inspections Division and Community Development
Planning Division. Both Public Safety and Community Development
staff in reviewing the previous year have indicated that they
have the following areas of concern:
1. Feldmannn's usage of the car wash property adjacent to
their operation.
2. Feldmann's has also consistently used their employee and
customer parking area at 914 West 77 1/2 Street for
inventory parking which violates a stipulation of their
special use permit.
• 3. Feldmann's also continues to park vehicles on the
boulevard on the 494 frontage road which is a violation
of City ordinance 1155.09 subdivision 6.
4. Feldmann's has also parked an automobile haul-away truck
with banner signs in violation of the City's ordinance
1155.09 subd. 6 and sign ordinance 416.07 (d)(7)(IV).
V
The applicant has obtained his State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle
Dealer's License for 1989.
City Staff has previously invited all car dealers to meet with
city staff to discuss a number of regulations and ordinances that
pertain to car dearlerships. This meeting was attended by only
one car dealer.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the new and used motor vehicle dealer licenses for Terry
Feldmanns Imports for 1989 with the following stipulations:
- There may not be any parking of inventory cars on any
roadway or street.
- The customer and employee parking areas may not be used
• for inventory parking at any time. This could be
accomplished by rearranging the parking lot so that it
is in conformance with the special use permit. This must
be completed within thirty days of this hearing.
The parking of automobile haul-a-ways with or without
signs is a violation of the off-street parking agreement
and the motor vehicle dealer's license ordinance and must
be discontinued in the future.
- This dealer license covers 920 West 78th Street and 914
West 77 1/2 Street. Dealership use of any other property
in violation of this license will be referred to the City
Attorney for appropriate civil or criminal action.
- The licensee will comply with all other ordinances or
statutes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has not complied with all of the provisions
of the City codes and the special use permit pertaining to
motor vehicle dealer's licensure.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an
asset to the community.
Alternatives:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however,
if the hearing is continued beyond February 27, 1989, the
• Council must consider the granting of a license extension
to allow the applicant to continue to operate until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide not to grant the license
renewals. This would result in the applicant not being
able to operate a motor vehicle dealership in Richfield.
3. The Council could decide to grant the license renewals
without the recommended stipulations. This would result
in the applicant not being in compliance with the city
code and their special use permit.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of
all motor vehicle dealer licenses has been scheduled for February
27, 1989 and are presented at this time for council.
consideration.
Resp ctfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 43
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment permitting a
restaurant drive-up service window and associated facilities to
be located between 60 and 150 feet from residentially zoned
property provided certain performance criteria are met.
Background:
The zoning •ordinance was amended several years ago to preclude
restaurant drive-up service windows within 150 feet of
residentially zoned property. This was a response to problems,
especially noise, with respect to existing restaurant operations.
In November, 1988, petitioner, Ray Tharp, was granted a
conditional use permit for a restaurant at 6529 Penn Avenue
South, but a drive-up service window could not be approved
because its proximity to residentially zoned property violated
this new ordinance. In response, petitioner submitted a proposed
amendment which would permit drive-up service windows to be
located less than 150 feet but at least 60 feet from
residentially zoned property provided certain mitigating
conditions are met.
The revised Planning Commission version is attached with the new
• language underlined. Any change would be considered as a general
amendment to the zoning ordinance applicable throughout the city
and not as a response solely to the Arby's situation.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an ordinance amendment in the form as revised by the
Planning Commission.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. That the ordinance as proposed would permit the drive-up
petition that was presented on 11-28-88.
2. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the revised amendment.
3. The proposed amendment would reduce the noise generated by a
drive-up window operation and better buffer the residential
area from headlight glare.
4. The current ordinance does not respond to the problem of
noise generated by an order board or any exterior loudspeaker
system which are the major sources of noise.
5. The utilization of a telephone or push button type system
should significantly reduce the noise generated by a drive-up
window.
6. A secondary impact is headlight glare while in a stacking
lane and buffering or screening will lessen such impact.
7. The existing 150 foot requirement precludes the utilization
of lots which are normally 135 feet in depth if such are
• backed up against residentially zoned property.
0
8. There is secondary noise which may result from the drive-up
service window operation such as car radios, car engine noise
and people congregating around cars. The Department of
Public Safety has indicated that this may be more significant
with drive-thru businesses and is of concern.
9. The consensus opinion of the staff development review
advisory committee is that the 150 foot requirement should
not be reduced. A reduction may well increase the adverse
environmental impact on the neighboring residents. Further,
the order board and any exterior loudspeakers should also be
precluded within 150 feet of residentially zoned property.
Alternative Recommendation:
An alternative amendment may be adopted which keeps the existing
150 foot requirement and also precludes the order board and
loudspeakers.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
Second reading and public hearing on the consideration of this
amendment is scheduled for February 27, 1989. Notice of the
public hearing has been published in the Richfield Sun Newspaper.
RTeD. lly submitted,
JProsser
C ger
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
• CITY of RICHFIRLD
owwTANCF. N0.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 520
OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 520 of the Richfield City Code of 1987 entitled: Zoning-commer-
cial districts is hereby amended by amending subdivision 10 of Subsection
520.21, to rend as follows:
Subd. 10. Conditional use permits! s ecial case.
The City Council shall not approve a speetal conditional use
permit for a restaurant with a drive-up service window if the
• drive-up service window., or the order station, or an exterior
lnuds_.peaker is located within 150 feet of residentially zoned
property, unless the City Council specifically makes all of the
following finds:
(a) neither the drive-up window, nor the order station nor
an exterior louds eaker is within 60 feet of an
residentially zoned property;
(b) order taking and order confirmation are conducted
either by direct voice communication or through other
means not utilizing sound amplification; and
(c) a required buffer or screening area will be so con-
structed as to obstruct headlight beams of automobiles
in the vehicle stacking lane from beaming onto adjacent
residential pro,perty,
i
• It shall be a Y required condition of the conditional , use
hermit that the drive-up window activity UiYbe maintained in a
?•-Y1M+w??4i+?r YI Y wr
manner consistent with such findings.
The terms "residentially zoned property" shall include any
r
planned unit.development which contains residences within it.
Passed and adapted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne-
rota, this day of , 1989.
Steven Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
u
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Rf1dOrd1:00550n16.EI4
2
Alternative Staff Recommendation
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 520
OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 520 of the Richfield City Code of 1987 entitled:
Zoning-commercial districts is hereby amended by amending
subdivision 10 of Subsection 520.21, to read as follows:
Subd. 10. Conditional use permits: special case.
The city council shall not approve a conditional use permit
for a restaurant with a drive-up service window if the drive-up
is service window, or the order station, or an exterior loudspeaker
is located within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. The
terms "residentially zoned property" shall include any planned
unit development which contains residences within it.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1989.
ATTEST:
Steven Quam, Mayor
•
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
n
U
e .=_3 j_
E
2000 First Bank Flaow West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 664M
Telephone (012) 33"6d3
Telecopier 1012! 3334W
J. annb O'Brien
John E. Drewz
David J. Kennedy
Joeoph E. Hamilton
John B. Own
plann E. Purdta
Richard J. 30hieffor
Charles L. LoFevere
.brass J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Cash
O*vv B Schmidt
John G. Kreewal
Jemss M. etrommM
Ronald H. Betty
Willarn P. Jordan
'44I1lam R. Skallorud
A. Heine
C.d*o. Beaudoin
n M. Taken
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. A"m
Tkrwhy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
.Julia A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hkeaman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chomorlik
Paul D. asonwhl
Arian kt2
! Cbyton L. L.f*vsrs, Retired
+4erbort P. Lefler, Retired
•
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien k
Dralwz
s Wcalonul
Anmisuoc
January 18, 1989
Mr. Byron Wallace
Director, Community
Development Department
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave., S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Richfield Ordinance Code S 520.21,
(Drive-up restaurant service windows)
subd.
10;
Dear Byron:
Approximately two years ago, the City Council amended
Section 520.21 regulating conditional use- permits for
restaurants. The amendment added subdivision 10 which
precluded the granting of a conditional use permit for a
restaurant having drive-up windows if the window was
located within 150 feet of residentially zoned property.
The amendment was the result of complaints from residents
concerning problems experienced by them resulting from
the location of drive-up windows in close proximity to
residential property. The complaints involved issues
such as noise, litter and headlight glare
The enactment of the subdivision was a reasonable
response to land use concerns and was entirely within the
legislative discretion of the Council. The Council's
determination that 150 feet was an appropriate separation
would most likely be sustained by a reviewing court.
Since the enactment of subdivision 10, at least two
property owners have requested relief from its limita-
tion. In the first instance, the property owner had
requested that the City grant a variance which would
significantly reduce the required 150 foot separation.
in a written opinion letter to you, we concluded that the
requested variance amounted to a "use variance" which is
forbidden under Minnesota Statutes, Section 662.357,
subd. 6.
Mr. Byron Wallace
January 18, 1989
Page 2
In the second instance, the owner has requested that
subdivision 10 be amended in such a way as to permit the
issuance of a conditional use permit for a restaurant
with a drive-up window on his property. The requested
amendment involves, in essence, a narrowing of the
separation. The narrowing is accomplished by breaking
the 150-foot separation into two zones. The first zone
is within 60 feet of the residential property. No
drive-up window may be located within this zone. The
second zone lies outside the first zone and extends for
an additional 90 feet. Drive-up windows may be located
in this zone if certain standards are met.
You have asked for my comments on this proposal.
The existing subdivision 10 has served the City well.
The limitation is clear and absolute, it is easy to
administer, property owners understand what they cannot
do, and the occupants of adjacent residential property
receive a significant measure of protection. In short,
it accomplishes legitimate land use objections.
• The proposed amendment would introduce potentially
annoying activities into the "clear zone" contained in
the present ordinance. In reviewing the proposed amend-
ment, the inquiry of the Planning Commission and the
Council should be whether the proposed amendment also
accomplishes those objectives. If it does not, it should
not be considered.. If it does, than the Council still
has the discretion of adopting the amendment or retaining
subdivision 10 in its present form.
From a planning standpoint, both the Planning Commission
and the Council should consider whether a separation of
not more than 60 feet is a sufficient buffer from those
bothersome elements of a drive-up window activity which
an ordinance really can never control, such as noise from
the stacked vehicles (mufflers, radios, occupants).
Further, consideration should be given to whether the
mitigative features contained in the proposed amendment
(applicable to the 60-150 foot zone) are sufficient.
Without attempting to prejudge how these matters will be
resolved, I have made some modifications to the proposed
amendment. These modifications are intended to address
what appeared to me to be weaknesses in the proposal. A
copy of my draft is attached.
7
Mr. Byron Wallace
January 18, 1989
• Page 3
The Planning Commission and the Council may also wish to
consider the possibility of a two-prong approach to this
subject. That approach would be to control the undesir-
able elements of the drive-up activity both through the
CUP and through licensure. This approach is similar to
the approach which we use with auto detailing establish-
ments.
Respectfull yours,
h S. Dean
J :rsr
Enclosure
subd. 10. Conditional use Permit -• ,, ial Case.
The City Council shall not approve a conditional use permit
for a restaurant with a drive-up service window if-the drive-up
service window, or the order station, or the drive-up window
vehicle stacking lane is located within 150 feet of residentially
zoned property, unless the City Council specifically makes all of
the following findings:.
(a) neither the drive-up window, nor the order station, nor
the vehicle stacking lane are within 60 feet of any
residentially zoned property:
(b) order taking and order confirmation are conducted
either by direct voice communication or through other
means not utilizing sound amplifications
(c) the drive-up vehicle stacking lane is designed so that
vehicle headlights will not cast light upon or toward
residential property; and
(d) the drive-up service window will not be in operation
between the hours of and
it shall be a required condition of the conditional use
permit that the drive-up window activity be maintained in a
manner consistent with such findings.
The term "residentially zoned property" shall include any
-planned unit development which contains residences within it.
MMD10.E14
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 42
Agenda February 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Joint Meeting of the City.Council and State Legislators to
discuss legislative items.
Background:
Senator Mike Freeman, Representative Joyce Henry, and
Representative Chris Tjornhom will be present at 5:30 p.m. on
Monday, February 27, 1989 to discuss legislative items with the
City Council and city staff. A list of these items is attached.
Recommended Motion:
Review these items with the state legislators.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is important that our legislators are aware of issues that
concern the City of Richfield.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
This discussion has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Monday
evening. A light supper will be provided.
Respectful,4y submitted,
James IS./ Prosser
City ager
JDP/e j a
0
• RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY ITEMS
-Tax Increment Financing. The City of Richfield is a
classical example of a community which depends upon tax
increment financing to improve its tax base. Richfield was
first established as a bedroom community with little
attention to commercial industrial tax base development.
Richfield currently has one of the lowest
commercial/industrial ratios of any suburban community with
virtually no open space remaining for development. In
order to redevelop, tax increment financing is necessary to
assist with land write-downs and public improvement costs.
Any change in tax increment financing must be carefully
reviewed with city staff.
-Affordable Housing. The Governor's Commission on
affordable housing deserves support. However a larger
share of funding should be made available to suburbs,
especially older suburbs such as Richfield. The funding
request was for $58 million dollars. The recommendation
includes $20 million to Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth,
and $19 million to the balance of the state.
-Year of the City. Year of the City program should be
expanded beyond first class cities to the entire state.
• -Urban Revitalization Preservation (VRAP). VRAP should be
redefined to include more cities, especially older suburbs.
Funding formulas typically used for urban areas don't work
well for suburbs, including Richfield. Urban formulas are
based on neighborhoods, and concentration of blight and low
income people. Richfield and other suburbs typically do
not have needs based on neighborhoods and concentration of
characteristics. Needs exist on a scattered site basis.
-Airport. The airport issues are extremely complex.
Richfield's position is support for the airport in its
current location, support for the airport expansion as
necessary. Recognition of the need to protect the
environment, especially residential areas immediately
surrounding the airport. Richfield is looking for positive
solutions to the airport issue. Richfield and Bloomington
are working together to develop alternatives to the dual
track approach. We ask the legislature not to'take any
action endorsing the dual track approach until we have had
an opportunity to present information to the legislature.
This information should be available in the fall.
-Comparable Worth. Comparable worth is an issue to
Richfield. We implemented a comparable worth program which
• appears to be working fairly well. No changes in the
program should be made until the program has had an
opportunity to work. One significant problem has emerged;
that is, the inability to reconcile the state Employers
Labor Relations Act and the Pay Equity Act. The problem is
that the arbitrator's award for essential employees -
police and fire - often exceed guidelines included in the
pay equity plans developed by cities. This develops
inconsistency in the pay structure of cities. This is one
problem that could be addressed.
-LGA Property Tax. The current property tax structure
within Minnesota places a greater tax burden on property
within Metro areas for funding local services. An effort
should be made to reduce this inequity. Additionally,
recent state statistics show that while 64% of the state
income and sales taxes are generated within the Metro Area,
only 45% is returned to this area. This inequity between
metro and non-metro areas is growing. An effort should be
made to slow down the rate at which this aid gap is
growing.
-Parks and Open Space. Richfield supports legislation for
capital development and operations/maintenance which would
provide adequate funding levels for state and regional park
systems to meet the outdoor recreation needs of Minnesota
residents and tourists. Furthermore, Richfield supports an
appropriation of $5 million for matching grants for the
local government outdoor recreation grant program.
-Sales Tax on Municipal Vehicles. The exclusion extended to
public safety vehicles should be provided to all municipal
vehicles.
• -Public Employment Labor Relations Act: Temporary or
Seasonal Employees. The 1983 legislature amended the
Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) so that
temporary or seasonal public employee who is employed for
more than 67 days during a calendar year will be eligible
for exclusive union representation. As a result of the
amendment, public employers could be required to negotiate
the terms and conditions of employment for those seasonal
employees working more than 67 days in a calendar year.
Previous legislation allowed a temporary or seasonal
employment to work for 100 days before being eligible for
exclusive union representation.
The City of Richfield has many concerns relative to the
negative impact the 67 day rule has created.
-Unemployment Compensation. The City of Richfield believes
that individuals who knowingly accept temporary employment
of specific limited durations or provisional employment not
exceeding six months and whose employment is thus ended,
should be disqualified for certain benefits. The employers
involved should not be saddled with unemployment
compensation costs for individuals who accept, and perhaps
even plan for, the termination of such employment.
40 -Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). Those
funds which were borrowed to offset a state deficit should
be returned to the PERA Fund.
-Highway Funding. The City of Richfield supports an
increase in funding for highways in Minnesota. (Recent
studies of 135, 1494 and TH77 indicate an upcoming crisis
on the regional freeway system. A failure of the regional
system will cause excessive traffic on local streets.
-13th Check Opposition. Legislators will likely seek
authority for local relief associations to gain the 13th
Check payment for pension funds. This should be a high
priority to mount a unified opposition against.
-Tax Law. It is important for the City to monitor any
proposed changes since the outcome will directly affect
City revenue.
-Amendment to Election Laws 211A.05, Subd. 1. The City of
Richfield supports the removal of liability on local
filing officers and placing the responsibility to provide
proof of compliance on candidates is desirable.
-Optical Scan Format for Paper Ballots. The City of
Richfield supports legislation to authorize the optical
scan format for paper ballots (use of arrow instead of X).
This would standardize ballots for use in school districts
who do not use optical scan or in the case of a special
election where a paper ballot must be utilized.
-Uniform Election Day. There continues to be proposals
for a uniform election day which would require city and
school districts to conduct elections on specific dates in
• odd numbered year elections. This proposal would require
a change back to off year elections for Richfield. The
City of Richfield opposes this change.
-Watercraft Titling Bill H.F. 56. Supports the titling of
certain watercraft. Administrative fee of $3.25 for
Deputy Registrar for processing would be provided.
Potential for additional city revenue.
-Bad Check Legislation. Several bills have been
introduced in the past which would prohibit the Department
of Public Safety from issuing, renewing or reinstating a
drivers license or license plate to any person who is
liable for a bad check at that time. The City of
Richfield supports stronger measures to help control the
purchase of license plates and renewals with bad checks.
-Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores. This year the item may be
labeled as one category of beer and would open the door
for all spirits to be marketed by grocery purveyors. The
City of Richfield opposes any change in this legislation.
-Container Redemption. This item would monetarily affect
the personnel costs and limit space within stores.
-Keg Beer Elimination for Off-Sale Establishments. The
City owned municipal liquor stores are in favor of this
proposal. The costs involved and residual potential for
minor consumption places this item as a loss prevention
for establishments with no long term monetary loss.